The following correspondence took place between myself and a Christian
during October 2000, when the Christian wrote and began by saying that
he did not believe the Bible was infallible as God has used imperfect
human beings throughout history to achieve his will and while
the Bible was 'inspired', it included flaws.
The correspondence, for the greater part, dealt with the evidence,
or rather the lack of evidence for the historical Jesus. I found
that in this case, several questions were not answered, e.g., when
asking to which 'Jewish sanhedrin' records he was referring, no
response was given. I gained the impression that the writer had
read (in Christian literature) of a supposed 'numerous writings which
make reference to Jesus' existence' and accepted this without making
further enquiry, e.g., no one who had made a serious enquiry would
cite the Talmud as evidence in view of the chronological
confusion within it. The writer also says that Tacitus' Annals
served 'as Roman records for the execution'. As this is not so,
I asked on what he based this statement but again, there was no
response. In sum, one gains the impreassion that Christians use a
'blunderbuss approach'; on being asked to elaborate upon
something said (which was no doubt read in some Christian literature),
instead of any reply, other 'defences' (which are as weak as
what was said earlier and queried) are then thrown out. And so it
goes on.
What does become clear, so far, is that very few Christians bother
to read, or familiarize themselves with material which offers a different
perspective to the one that they hold.

But how do you account for the lack of evidence
or Jesus' historicity (covered in my website)?

>Well, there is evidence to support that Jesus DID
>exist as well. Your website only has a different
>interpretation of the evidence that many
>have thoroughly studied and come to alternate
>conclusions. Flavius Josephus (1st century, who was
>not a Christian) mentions him twice in *Jewish Antiquities*,
>one of his historical works, as you have pointed out in
>your website. Despite the appearance that the
>'phrase Jesus is the Christ' may be a later insertion into
>Josphus' work, the very fact Josephus wrote at all about
>Christ indicates that he most likely was real.
No, both texts are/include interpolations, i.e., the
longer one is, which then makes the short one an
interpolation also as it would make no sense on its
own. On what evidence do you base your belief that the
longer text was written by Josephus, albeit
without 'the Christ' reference?
NB. G.A. Wells' books covers this in considerable
detail.

>Again as you mentioned, Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman
>Senator in the 1st century, verifies the death of
>Christ in his work Annals, serving as Roman records
>for the execution.
(i)This is answered on page3.htm
on my website.
(ii)A statement in the following century is hardly
contemporary evidence! In fact if you read it,
he is simply repeating what Christians had told him
of their beliefs.
(iii)It was not 'a record of Roman executions' -
on what do you base this statement?

>Jewish Sanhedrin records of the time also mention
>Him.
Jewish records date Yeshu BenPandira (or different)
anytime between 200 BCE and 200 CE. To what reference
are you alluding here? Also these were not written
in early 1st cent. Palestine.

>If we throw all this out, we have to throw out evidence
>of any number of things accepted historically from other
>sources of the same level and quality of evidence.
Not at all. I repeat, what is your evidence
for Jesus' historical existence? - one brief
text in Josephus and another brief reference in the
following century? What other beliefs have been
based - and verified - on such evidence?

>Well, many of the instances you mentioned on your
>site were often taken well
>outside their written context. It is something that
>many people do in using
>the Bible to make their point--including fundys.
The Bible reports God instructing the wholesale
slaughter of innocent people - how is this taken 'out
of context'???

>Well, in deciding the canon, previous church fathers
>did have to leave out
>certain texts (the apocrypha, pseudopigrapha).
>Unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians that do
>ignore texts that are
>inconvenient. But in only pointing out the texts
>that show the wrath of God
>on your website, you have done the same thing.
>There are plethora of texts
>in the Bible thatr reflect positive values, and that
>alone is good reason to at least consider Christ.
My website doesn't only make weight of the wrath of
God texts, but the overall inconsistency. The Bible
does teach good things, but these are found in
the scriptures of other religions/philosophies,
so this surely invalidates any Christian claim to
be 'the only way' to God.

>I find that so much of your
>reactions to ancient sources are speculative.
In view of the material available and the fact that
variations exist which demonstrate that changes have
been made, speculation is the only choice we have.
Presumably you are not saying that you know for certain
what the answers are?

>You point out that sections (the italicized ones) of
>Josephus' works are disputed as being legitimate.
>Yet you would go so far as to say that the whole passage is
>interpolated. This is, without question, pure speculation.
So, what is the actual basis of your argument that the
text, with or without the italicized sections was
originally there? It is no good throwing insults at
people whose opinions you do not like. If you wish to
advance a viewpoint, then supply the necessary evidence.
You have not offered one piece of *evidence* in anything
that you have written, only what you believe or what you
want to be the case.
In fact, as is clearly stated at the beginning of the page,
the material was from different sources, one of which
suggested the italicized parts (only) were interpolated.
As the material was written by different people, different
opinions will (therefore) arise.
In my own case, I believe that common sense reasoning,
based on what evidence is available (detailed in the articles
and page3.htm indicates that the whole passage
is an interpolation. However, to ensure that more than one opinion
was reflected, different material was included.

>I would concur that the italicized sections could
>be interpolated, but to say that the whole section is not
>original due to its position in the whole text is at best
>speculative.
>If you remove the italicized parts, the mention of Christ
>is still there, validating His existence.
But in saying that the non-italicized text was there in the
original is *also* speculation as we simply do not know.
Furthermore, you offer no evidence for this conjecture/
speculation. You are saying this because you want to
believe this is so. As a comparison between Antiquities
and The Jewish War show interpolations were made by
Christians to include references to Christ, it is surely
hardly unreasonable to enquire about the extent of this
dishonesty?

>Do you really think that *every one* of these examples of
>ancient references to Jesus is a forgery?
This is a rather foolish comment. Firstly you say *every one*,
as if we are speaking of hundreds or even dozens; in reality
we are only considering two texts, e.g., Josephus. The
others texts in which Christ is mentioned are second century
and are not contemporaneous and on discussing the nature of
Christianity merely repeats what is known of Christian belief.
For example, with regard to a suggestion that Pliny's
reference to Christ in his letter to the emperor Trajan
is 'proof' of Christ's existence.
(i)Pliny is obviously repeating what he knows of Christian
belief:
'I have asked them whether they were Christian...they
maintained...that it was their habit on a fixed day to
assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of
words to Christ as a god' (iii,vii) (Questioning
Christians also occurs in viii).
What could be clearer than that? Why are you unable to
see this?
(ii)As the letter is usually dated ca. 112 CE, it is
not contemporaneous (and therefore worthless for
evidential value).
The fact that such writings have to be cited by Christians
in an attempt to show there was an acceptance of Christ's
historical existence only demonstrates the extraordinary
lengths needed to try to achieve this. In sum, if Christ
existed when the Gospels say, why is there this amazing
silence?

>What you are proposing is a conspiracy theory; that
>someone has either adjusted everything at some point
>in history
Again, you are being silly now. There is no suggestion of
a 'conspiracy theory'; it is simply that when Christian
copyists found texts with which they took issue, they
amended them, as was done in Biblical texts, e.g., Matthew
24:36. In this case it was not an addition but a removal
('Nor the Son', affecting the Son's onmiscience).
There were of course interpolations made in the N.T text
by Christian copyists as we can see by the textual
variations, and therefore no Christian can claim the
accusation of early Christian interpolation is unreasonable
as evidence of this is plain to see by those variations.
I presume you are not arguing that no amendments were made
by 1st-2nd cent. Christian copyists? If you are, how do
you account for the variations which exist in New Testament
texts (many of which all 'coincidentally' are doctrine-
related). Take for example P45, P46, P47, P66, P72 and P75: a
comparison of these shows:-
P45: Additions-28: Omissions-63
P46: Additions-55: Omissions-167
P47: Additions-5: Omissions-18
P66: Additions-14: Omissions-19
P72: Additions-16: Omissions-29
P75: Additions-12: Omissions-41
Of non-Biblical material, as stated on page8.htm
of the website, Josephus' writings were copied by Christians and
the silence regarding Jesus would have been startling
for them and some would have seen the need to remedy this.
It may have even been a sidenote later incorporated into the
main text as happened with 1 John 5:7.

>Again, this is all of speculative nature. You are heavily
>influenced by Wells, but he is certainly controversial in
>and of himself.
I am not influenced by him and certainly do not agree with
everything that he says; I simply find that his explanations
satisfy most of the questions which arise. Indeed he is
controversial but so were many Christian apologists, so why
criticize him for this? As you say 'You are heavily influenced
by Wells', this means you are familiar with his ideas - what
is your opinion of the shift in the preface of his 'The
Jesus Myth'? I presume you have read at least some of his
works to be able to make the above comment?

>Besides that, this only pertains to Christ. Are you also
>to say that the whole of the Old Testament (Semitic literature)
>is also forgery? If you question Josephus, the Talmud,
>and others on the existence of Christ, what do you do with
>references to Moses, Joshua, David, and many other figures in
>Jewish thought? They were influential as well, especially
>Moses. Are you also suggesting that all references to
>YHWH in Jewish literature were interpolated into an original
>document?
Once again you are being rather silly. I am not questioning
the historicity of O.T figures as they are not relevant to
the discussion.
Your above comment suggests that you have not actually
grasped (or want to grasp) the actual point of the discussion.
The point being made is that early N.T writings (e.g. Paul)
consistently fail to locate Christ in a chronological setting
and/or give expected historical information about him, e.g.,
when/where he lived. When this does occur it is only towards
the close of the first century in the later writings (e.g.
Gospels, Pastorals). However, reference to his historic
existence as a fact by non-Christians is wholly absent at
this time.
In the case of contemporary non-Biblical material, as we
have seen, there appear to be no genuine confirmations of
Christ's historical existence in the first cent. and even
in the second, the writers are only repeating what they have
heard of Christian belief.
One then has to ask why such an important figure, who
fed thousands with handfuls of food, raised the dead,
healed countless incurables, had thousands following
him wherever he went, and caused near-revolt (Matt 27:24),
went completely unnoticed other than in biased religious
documents? Why do for example, Philo and Justus of
Tiberius (writing 80 CE) not make any mention of him?
Is it not rather coincidental that it is only Josephus
who mentions him (rather clumsily), and Josephus' works
were copied by Christians?
You seem to be horrified at the very idea of interpolation
by Christians and yet you have all the evidence you need,
e.g. some versions of The Jewish War (the Slavonic/Old Russian
I believe) have many references about Jesus added. Its not
as if Christians did not amend texts when it suited them.
NB.
(i)Even Goldstein who accepts that the (rather few) early
texts that refer to Jesus are genuine admits 'they do not
conclusively establish that he [Jesus] existed at all'.
(M. Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition).
(ii)A rare 5th/6th cent. table of Antiquities also fails to
mention the longer Josephus passage.

>I am aware that your website deals with the Bible in a
>wholistic way too.
Wholistic?

>Perhaps the greatest defense of the existence and
>ressurection of Christ would be that of motive. In a
>political climate of persecution, an overbearing Roman
>government, the fact that Christians were killed
>(even early on),
Evidence?

>and the fact that there were far more reasons NOT to be a
>Christian than be one (by worldly standards, anyway), the
>only reason one would likely do so in the first century
>would be by personal experience of Christ.
As you are saying a willingness to suffer/die reflects a
personal experience of Christ? If so this must mean that
all people who have accepted hardship for their
beliefs, e.g., Jehovah Witnesses in Malawi and China,
Communists in Nazi Germany, athiests and freethinkers
in the middle ages, and Mormons in 1850s America, had a
'personal experience of Christ'?
If you are saying that a willingness to suffer for a
belief means that its origin must be Christ, how do you
account for such groups? Incidentally, the number of
Christians said to have been martyred is an exaggeration.
There is no incontrovertible/unbiased evidence to suggest that
the number of Christians
who were martyred was as is described by late 2nd cent. Christian
writers. Moreover, many Christians actually sought martyrdom, e.g.,
Origen. If one studies the 16th chapter of Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire, the following comments are made:

(i)'The total disregard of truth and probability in the
representation of these primitive martyrdoms was occasioned
by a very natural mistake. The ecclesiastical writers of the
fourth or fifth centuries ascribed to the magistrates of
Rome the same degree of implacable and unrelenting zeal
which filled their own breasts against the heretics or the
idolaters of their own times....
(ii)But it is certain, and we may appeal to the
grateful confessions of the first Christians, that the
greatest part of those magistrates who exercised in the
provinces the authority of the emperor or of the senate, and
to whose hands alone the jurisdiction of life and death was
intrusted, behaved like men of polished manners and liberal
education, who respected the rules of justice, and who were
conversant with the precepts of philosophy. They frequently
declined the odious task of persecution, dismissed the
charge with contempt, or suggested to the accused Christian
some legal evasion by which he might elude the severity of
the laws.
(iii)Whenever they were invested with a
discretionary power, they used it much less for the
oppression than for the relief and benefit of the afflicted
church. They were far from condemning all the Christians who
were accused before their tribunal, and very far from
punishing with death all those who were convicted of an
obstinate adherence to the new superstition...
(iv)The learned [Christian] Origen, who, from his
experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted
with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most
express terms, that the number of martyrs was very
inconsiderable. But the general assertion of Origen may be
explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of his
friend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria,
and under the rigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only
ten men and seven women who suffered for the profession of
the Christian name......
(v)It is not easy to extract any distinct ideas from the vague though eloquent
declamations of the Fathers, or to ascertain the degree of
immortal glory and happiness which they confidently promised
to those who were so fortunate as to shed their blood in the
cause of religion. They inculcated with becoming
diligence that the fire of martyrdom supplied every defect
and expiated every sin; that, while the souls of ordinary
Christians were obliged to pass through a slow and painful
purification, the triumphant sufferers entered into the
immediate fruition of eternal bliss, where, in the society
of the patriarchs, the apostles, and the prophets, they
reigned with Christ, and acted as his assessors in the
universal judgment of mankind. The assurance of a lasting
reputation upon earth, a motive so congenial to the vanity
of human nature, often served to animate the courage of the
martyrs...
(vi)Two circumstances, however, have been unwarily mentioned, which
insinuate that the general treatment of the Christians who had
been apprehended by the officers of justice was less intolerable
than it is usually imagined to have been.
1. The confessors who were condemned to work in the mines were permitted
by the humanity or the negligence of their keepers to build
chapels, and freely to profess their religion in the midst
of those dreary habitations.
2. The bishops were obliged to check and to censure the forward zeal of the
Christians, who voluntarily threw themselves into the hands
of the magistrates. Some of these were persons oppressed by
poverty and debts, who blindly sought to terminate a
miserable existence by a glorious death. Others were allured
by the hope that a short confinement would expiate the sins
of a whole life; and others again were actuated by the less
honourable motive of deriving a plentiful subsistence, and
perhaps a considerable profit, from the alms which the
charity of the faithful bestowed on the prisoners...
(vii)After the church had triumphed over all her enemies, the interest
as well as vanity of the captives prompted them to magnify
the merit of their respective suffering. A convenient
distance of time or place gave an ample scope to the
progress of fiction....
(viii)Number of martyrs: The vague descriptions of exile and imprisonment,
of pain and torture, are so easily exaggerated or softened by the
pencil of an artful orator...From the
history of Eusebius it may however be collected that only
nine bishops were punished with death; and we are assured,
by his particular enumeration of the martyrs of Palestine,
that no more than ninety-two Christians were entitled to
that honourable appellation...According to the distribution
of Roman provinces, Palestine may be considered as the sixteenth part
of the Eastern empire: and since there were some
governors who, from a real or affected clemency, had
preserved theirs hands unstained with the blood of the
faithful, it is reasonable to believe that the Country
which had given birth to Christianity produced at least the
sixteenth part of the martyrs who suffered death within the
dominions of Galerius and Maximin; the whole might
consequently amount to about fifteen hundred, a number
which, if it is equally divided between the ten years of the
persecution, will allow an annual consumption of one hundred
and fifty martyrs. Allotting the same proportion to the
provinces of Italy, Africa, and perhaps Spain, where, at the
end of two or three years, the rigour of the penal laws was
either suspended or abolished, the multitude of Christians
in the Roman empire, on whom a capital punishment was
inflicted by a judicial sentence, will be reduced to
somewhat less than two thousand persons...
(ix)We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which
obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting,
without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has
recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of
martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the
Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions,
have inflicted far greater severities on each other than
they had experienced from the zeal of infidels...The church of
Rome defended by violence the empire which she had acquired
by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon
disgraced by the proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the
institution of the holy office. And as the reformers were
animated by the love of civil as well as of religious
freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest
with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and the sword
the terrors of spiritual censures. In the Netherlands alone
more than one hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles V.
are said to have suffered by the hand of the executioner...
the number of Protestants who were executed in a single province
and a single reign far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in
the space of three centuries and of the Roman
empire...'

Hopefully the above shows that the argument that 'Christianity must be
true because so many people were willing to die for their belief'
is wholly invalid.

>There are 3 logical likely responses to Christ's
>death by the disciples:
>1. The disciples disband.
>2. The disciples go follow another religious or political
>leader,
>or 3. The disciples go completely underground.
Or as is suggested in my website, that a group of messianists
had visions of a saviour figure who had lived sometime in the
past and was about to return to usher in the eschaton. I suggest
you read this.
For the above you are relying upon New. Test documents and
yet even you have admitted in a preious email, they are not
infallible.

>The response was apparently none of these. SOMETHING
>happened to cause these men to "go evangelistic" and
>begin work as the church.
Indeed, but as stated above, others have had 'something
happen' to them which has prompted them to give up
their secular lives for the ensuing belief - but without
being Christian.

>If I may predict your response, you might say that the
>events of the Book of Acts are made up too; that the
>disciples may also have been a fabrication.
>(It is logical you would since that would be the easiest
>way to deal with logical responses of the disciples. The
>easiest way to deal with any opposing premise argumentatively
>is to deny the premise altogether)
No, not at all. Christian theologians have suggested there is
a fictional basis (or bias) to Acts, e.g., Prof. E. Haenchen.
I wonder what commentatories you have actually read on
Acts.
It is not a matter of simply denying what is undesirable,
but seeking sufficient evidence. In the case of Christ,
the early documents say little about his supposed earthly
life and by the time he is provided with a historical
setting, we have four different accounts which do not
agree with each other (e.g., Christ's birth and the date
of Christ's death, the resurrection appearances, the
ministry chronology, etc). I do not consider it
unreasonable to view the 'evidence' for Jesus to be
insufficient but also strongly indicating a fictional
basis, particularly in view of the religious cauldron
and mythological world in which it appeared. The fact is
that Christians do not believe because of any evidence
but because they want to, or rather, need to.
Note.
(i)By the time the later writings appear, it is likely
that the messages imparted by Christian prophets 'speaking
in the name of the risen Lord' in Paul's time were
collected and fed back into Jesus' time and placed in his
mouth during his earthly ministry. Consider how the
Didache instructs that wandering prophets are to be
'received as the Lord' and their behaviour should reflect
something of his character (xi).
Paul's teachings are not from what he knew of the
historical earthly Jesus, but from revelations, e.g.,
1 Cor 7:29, 11:23, Gal 2:2. How do we know all other
Christians did not fall in the same category? Quite
simply, we do not.
(ii)Of the silence of the early writings concerning
Jesus' life, the conservative Catholic theologian
Xavier Leon-Dufour says:-
'Why do these epistles...pay so little attention to
the events in the public life of our Lord, and why
do they not frequently cite his actual words ?...
The difficulty becomes even more acute if we compare
the teachings of the New Testament theologians with
the message in the gospel. (The Gospels and the
Jesus of History, p.53f).

>However, there obviously had to have been an early group
>of Christians somewhere, as we have other references to
>them very early on. It would still be unlikely that ANY
>group of Christians would give up their livlihood,
>families (possibly), reputation, and even their own lives
>unless they experienced something very life-changing.
>As far-reaching and overpowering as the Roman government
>and climate was, any idea that a group would fabricate such
>an elaborate and in-depth religious idea (that was quite
>revolutionary I might add) for alterior motives, just does
>not make any sense. They would have known that their
>obvious efforts to publiclyevangelize would bring
>persecution on them.
We simply return to what has been said above, i.e.,
Communists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, and
countless other groups have done exactly the same at the
time when they were in their infancy.
In contrast Christians simply now accept the doctrines,
teachings, etc, which suit them, i.e., customize them.
With regard to your note that archeology supports the
N.T, I would point out that archeology conflicts with
some Old Testament texts, e.g., the stories of Jericho,
Ai, Gibeon in Joshua 1-9 (Israelite and Judaean History,
ed. J. J. Hayes and J Maxwell Miller, p.260).

I now find myself asking much the same questions that I
did with previous writers, i.e.,
Why do so many Christians fail to comply with Biblical
statements? For example, Christ is said to have raised
the dead, walked on water, cured all manner of illnesses,
and in John 14:12, he is reported to have said:-'He who believes
in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works
than these will he do...'. Consequently, Christians should
be achieving not only all that Christ is said to have done,
but even more than this. And yet, this is not so. Why not?

Christ is reported to have told his disciples that
the follower must 'take up his cross and follow me'
(Matt 10:38, 16;24) and lose his life for Christ's sake
(Matt 10:39, 16:25). How many Christians do this? Do you?
Luke 14:26 has Christ saying that: 'if anyone comes to me and
does not hate his own father and mother and wife and
children...he cannot be my disciple' (NB. The Greek word rendered
'hate' here means 'to hate, usually implying ill-will
in words and conduct or a persecuting spirit'. Bullinger). Do
you hate your parents, spouse and/or children?

In Matt 19:24 Christ is reported as warning: 'It is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God'. Despite puerile attempts to give
this a 'symbolic' or 'allegorical' meaning, the statement
is absolutely clear: the 'rich' cannot enter heaven (Luke 16:19-23
emphasises this point.
Note how the faith or lack of faith
of either man is not even mentioned: all we are told
is that the rich man went to hell and the poor man/beggar
to paradise). 'Rich' in first century Palestine would normally be
understood as those who had wealth which far exceeded their
day-to-day needs. However, on looking at the lifestyle of most
Christians in the West (particularly fundamentalists), such people
certainly satisfy the term 'rich' by owning their own home (or
homes), the size of which far exceeds their actual need,
many owning a car, or several cars, and having a plethora
of material goods. The vast majority also have savings,
investment portfolios, pension schemes, and so on
(Ironically, such people are usually the first to proclaim
'moral' judgements on others).
Furthermore, this is also in stark contrast to Acts 2:44-45
which reports that believers: 'had all things in common; and
they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to
all, as any had need'. How many Christians do this? Do you?
In Matt 5:42, Jesus is reported to have instructed: 'Give
to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would
borrow from you'. How many Christians do this? Do you?

Surely it is only reasonable to expect Christians to be
complying with scriptural instructions before they begin
preaching to others?

As far as I know, every person who runs a website that
challenges Christian belief receives emails from Christians,
which after only a short time degenerate; firstly because
the Christian is unable to grasp the substance of the
discussion because of their limited reading; secondly,
due to the frustration of not being able to substantiate
the claims made, the Christian begins to make statements
which are infantile; and thirdly they show an unwillingness
to carefully and objectively consider the evidence. This
is hardly surprising as a Christian needs his/her faith to
make sense of the world and his/her own being.
Whether it
'makes sense' is not a relevant issue. In fact by virtue
of what Christian belief is, some might consider it
impossible to have a meaningful dialogue simply because
the Christian will not concede anything that challenges
his/her faith.
Possibly they choose to 'take on' the athiest in the
hope that this will strengthen their faith, and on seeing
that this is unsuccessful, have no option other than to
resort to wild generalizations and extravagant claims. For
example, in the above, you clearly consider Acts is a
historical factual document whereas there is no evidence
to support this and good reason, as some Christian
academic commentators concede, to reject such a viewpoint.
If I cited the Upanishads or the Koran or Das
Kapital to assert a point, I am sure that you would also want some
evidence or sound reason for why these writings are
authoritative.
In sum, there is really no point in continuing this
discussion when you are not willing or able to consider
the matter and the relevance of evidence.

Regards

David

Despite what I said at the conclusion, I received a reply which
included the following:
(1)
>You feel that I have not considered your evidence, when in
>fact I have. The fact is, Christians, Jews, and members
>of most any religion do not base their belief on factual
>evidence ALONE, but on their own experience and faith.
>That may not seem very scientific to you, but the Bible
>was never a scientific endeavor, nor is Judaism, or
>Christianity....
(2)
>Finally, you asked, after mentioning various things
>Jesus did, if I do them, and mentioned that you don't
>understand why Christians in general do not. We don't
>raise the dead, change water to wine, etc. because we
>are not Christ. In other words, He walked on water,
>not us. Just as Peter could not stay above water,
>we can't be God.
(3)
>Yes, we are to strive for his principles (the
>"perfection", Paul talks about). No, I do NOT do all
>that Jesus commanded. It is very common for non-religious
>people to use the hypocrisy of others to try to support
>their ideas. Its funny how Christians are expected
>by non-religious people to be perfect, when they
>themselves cannot live up to the claim either.
>Should you really hold even Christians to a standard
>if that standard is not yours as well? That too,
>is a form of hypocrisy.

The above clearly supports what I have already said. With regard to (1),
the writer appears to be unaware of the meaning of 'evidence' and
what is required by this, and the fact that one would reasonably
expect to see at least some evidence for what is believed: in this
case, Jesus' historical existence. The point that I also made was
that religious transformations are found in most religions and
therefore invalidate the Christian view that being 'born again' 'proves'
the validity of their faith and experience, but this was left
unanswered.
With regard to (2), the writer has chosen to overlook that I
quoted Jesus' alleged words in which he says his followers will not only
perform the same miracles that he had done, but even greater ones.
While the writer complains 'We don't raise the dead, change water to
wine, etc. because we are not Christ', this does not answer the
point made. If he was familiar with
the Bible and had bothered to read what I had quoted (John 14:12),
he would have realized that Jesus is in fact reported to have said
that his followers will be able to do precisely these things - and much
more.
In respect of (3), supporting my contention that Christians
customize their faith, the writer admits 'No, I do NOT do all
that Jesus commanded' without explaining why this is. He continues
by saying: 'Its funny how Christians are expected by non-religious people
to be perfect, when they themselves cannot live up to the claim
either'.
In fact Christians are taught to 'be perfect' (Matthew 5:48),
so it is not unreasonable to question why they are not; and with regard
to the puerile comment concerning unbelievers, I am unaware
of any atheist claiming to be perfect in which case the obligation
does not arise (and of course the writer again fails to substantiate this
comment). If Christians claim to be of a certain nature or
mode of being it is unclear why Christians should then resent the
failure to achieve this being pointed out to them. To answer this challenge
by simply saying that others (who in fact do not even claim to be perfect),
are not perfect either is obviously absurd. Again
it becomes obvious that when failings are pointed out, the best that
Christians can do is to say that others do likewise, ignoring the
fact that much of the New Testament says that Christians should be
unlike non-believers and those 'of the world' (Romans 12:2, James
1:27).
In sum, because some wish to call themselves Christians, but also
fully participate in the world and enjoy its material benefits,
we reach the so very obvious contradiction in Christian living
which consistently conflicts with the Biblical instructions which they
claim to follow, and/or apply to them.